Excellent points regarding genuine ecumenicity. What RC polemicists fail to appreciate, is that the "seven great Councils" characterized a particular age of the Church, a decidedly Imperial one. They were Imperial Councils, called and sponsored by Roman Emperors...not the Pope, but a guy living in Constantinople in purple robes. That they were accepted by the Church is what is significant, since the Church also knows of "pseudo-councils" including those which were, sadly, sponsored by misguided Emperors.

Thus, given that the age of East-Roman Emperors has come to a close, or given the circumstances surrounding the years of their decline, it's not surprising that there haven't been "other Ecumenical Councils" in the same sense, though the Palamite Synods and certainly the often identified "8th Synod" (which was recognized by the Roman Pontiff contemporary to it, which anathematized the filioque clause in the Creed) come pretty darned close, and frankly don't lack any of the qualifications of the former (Imperial sponsorship, signatories representing the major Orthodox Patriarchates, etc.)

Also important to emphasize, is that the Church existed and struggled against heresies before 325 A.D. (Council of Nicea)!

All of these things are within God's hands, and are expressions of His providence.

The filioque was "officially" inserted into the creed at the Second Council of Lyons (II:1): "We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration."

Indulgences were considered in the Council of Trent in the 25th Session: "Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy Synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of [Page 278] by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them."

Papal Infallibility and Supremacy at Vatican I (4th Session): "Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

Let us also not forget the aberration that is Nostra Aetate from Vatican II: The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men."

However, Scripture teaches thus (Dt. 18:9): "When you come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you must not learn to imitate the abhorrent practices of those nations." There can be nothing holy in religions that do not have God's grace.

Again Nostra Aetate teaches: "The Church therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue andcollaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out withprudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life,they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual andmoral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men."

Whilst the Bible teaches (Rev. 18:4-5): "Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, ‘Come out of her, my people, so that you do not take part in her sins, and so that you do not share in her plagues; for her sins are heaped high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities." What does this passage teach us? To have nothing to do with evil. Non-Christian religions must, logically, be evil as they stray people away from the One, True God.

Would St. Peter kiss the Koran? This is how far the Church of Rome has strayed.

PS. ... And I call myself a Catholic!ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

Are you denying that anything that is found to be good and true is not from God or by the grace of God? If so what source other than God produces goodness or truth?

The Pope being a human made what most of us believe was an error in kissing the koran which he did when presented one as a gift from the head of a Muslim state he was visiting. Many people in Jesus' day thought Jesus made an error when he sat and ate with taxcollectors or spoke with Samaratan women. For Jesus his associating with sinners was to witness to the truth and invite them to come to the truth of The Gospel. Let us not think we are so high and mighty that we shouldn't speak with nonchristians.

Just the fact that you are out of communion for the last 1000 years is bad enough.

What is worse, and what seals that out-of-communion status is the fact that over those 1000 years RCC has developed (and dogmatized) so many teachings (docrines) that are not just against the Tradion of the Orthodox Church but simply wrong.The problem is that there can not be any negotiation. It is not the question of "price is right". There can not be any negotiation. It is simple.

"Negotiating" has nothing to do with what Lord tought (becuse neither HIM not anybody else, EVER thought that we should compromise faith for the sake of unity).

I am sorry, it just does not work like that.

There can no be unity with those who teach wrongly, until they declare erroneus doctrine the way it should be declared, wrong.There are some anachronisms here, like Oriental Christians, but that is completely different stack of cards.

in ICXCstefan+

Of course it's not that simple. However do we not desire to reunite The Church? Then the first step is dialogue, which has been going on but then slowed down. Perhaps not enough desire? Now that Pope Bennedict is elected it seems there is some renewed interest at proceeding again. From what I have read it seems that The Russian Patriarch was the most adamately against reaproachment with Rome in the past years but now he has made some statements which seem to open up the door a crack.

Could I just point out that whilst there may well be far more RCs than Orthodox nowadays, that is down to the combined results of Muslim and Communist persecution in the east and the extremely aggressive proselytism and empire building of certain RC countries (most notably Portugal and Spain). This most certainly was not the case at the time of the Schism when western Christians made up a minority of the Church, most being in the four Sees that remained Orthodox. Just thought that bit of historical clarification was warranted as with this:

You appeared to be trying to play the wonderfully (in this case doubly - as in, numbers of believers prove nothing but in the 11th century the numbers were on our side) erroneous numbers game. I'm sure you weren't as your arguments are usually more reasonable than that, but I believe this needed pointing out.

James

Yes James thank you for clarifying my mistake. I was not thinking very throughly regarding the numbers in the 11th century. I assumed that because of the Muslim conquerors that the Eastern part of the Church was depopulated by the massive (forced?) conversions to Islam.

You expressed disdain for the "numbers game" but you, yourself, engendered the continuing commission of egregious errors by declaring that the "Muslims have the Roman Catholics beat!"

Taking the totality of Muslims against a major branch of Christianity is an incorrect "numbers game," unless you don't think the 700 million Protestants and 300 million Orthodox also make up wolrdwide Christianity?

You expressed disdain for the "numbers game" but you, yourself, engendered the continuing commission of egregious errors by declaring that the "Muslims have the Roman Catholics beat!"

Taking the totality of Muslims against a major branch of Christianity is an incorrect "numbers game," unless you don't think the 700 million Protestants and 300 million Orthodox also make up wolrdwide Christianity?

Is there specific documentation for this excommunication in 1014? I know that at some point prior to 1054 the Pope was dropped from the diptychs, but even the Pope was not excommunicated in 1054, just his legates, so it would seem that 40 years after 1014 the Eastern and Western churches still considered themselves in communion with each other.

Are you denying that anything that is found to be good and true is not from God or by the grace of God? If so what source other than God produces goodness or truth?

I think what most people object to (including those Roman Catholics who were shoved out the door by the "great reforms of Vatican II", like the Lefebvrists), is that the text is imbued with an over-estimation of the goodness of infidelic/pagan religions, and does not clearly teach that while those "true elements" may be good, that if taken part-and-parcel with the infidelic religion, become utterly useless. IOW, they point to salvation, but cannot grant it in the context of idolatry/atheism, etc.

Quote

The Pope being a human made what most of us believe was an error in kissing the koran which he did when presented one as a gift from the head of a Muslim state he was visiting.

That's the sad part - "most of us", as in to say there are actually people in your religion who defend this act in some wise.

Quote

Many people in Jesus' day thought Jesus made an error when he sat and ate with taxcollectors or spoke with Samaratan women. For Jesus his associating with sinners was to witness to the truth and invite them to come to the truth of The Gospel. Let us not think we are so high and mighty that we shouldn't speak with nonchristians.

(False) equivocation, and incredibly offensive at that, since there is no parity between Christ keeping company with those who society thought of as supersticiously "untouchable" (while we so called "righteous" are very often guilty of the same sins as they, even if not in degree, at least in kind...or perhaps are just better at hiding them!), and someone basically redefining what it is to be a "Christian" ala Karl Rahners ridiculous "invisible Christianity".

Yes, Christians should be speaking to non-Christians - precisely so that they may acquire the faith which comes by hearing, not so as to be lulled into believing their religions can grant them the remission of their sins or the hope of the world to come.

Quote

However do we not desire to reunite The Church?

As far as Orthodoxy is concerned, "the Church" in the dogmatic sense, has always been, and can only be "one". Since your hierarchs and people cannot/will not provide evidence for professing the same faith as we, which is the same faith your fathers had and agreed do (which included a firm rejection of the filioque interpolation into the Creed), and are not in any wise in communion with the Orthodox Church, we have no evidence that you guys are part of the "one Church." God can do as He pleases, but we little ones can only go by what has been revealed to mankind.

James2,

Quote

Is there specific documentation for this excommunication in 1014? I know that at some point prior to 1054 the Pope was dropped from the diptychs, but even the Pope was not excommunicated in 1054, just his legates, so it would seem that 40 years after 1014 the Eastern and Western churches still considered themselves in communion with each other.

The estrangement of western Christendom began well before 1054, and did not become finalized until years following this (though 1054 was certainly a watershed year.) More decisve would be the later Palamite Synods, which very clearly condemn propositions accepted by the Latins, at least during that period.

I think it's dishonest to try and portray an ongoing union via sophistry; sophistry being one of the hallmarks of lesser Roman Catholic polemics. Legalisms, word-games, etc. cannot avoid the concrete fact that you profess things as dogmas which we consider leaven and "traditions of men" - we do not have the same Chalice, and have not for centuries, for precisely the reasons I've just mentioned. Your forefathers broke faith with their brethren, and in outrageous vanity rent the Church asunder by trying to "lord over" others strange teachings which were never our own, and not even of your ancestors in most cases.

Pretending (and that's the operative word here) that none of that happened, and that this can be all ignored by virtue of the fact no great Council gathered together and excommunicated each and every last person in communion with the Pope is silly - not to mention that this isn't even how the formulas of anathematization typically worked anyway; they were typically far less specific than that, simply pointing at whoever rejected/denied this-or-that teaching/definition. While heresairchs are often named, it's erroneous propositions which are attacked with an anathema directed at those who hold to them.

See, this is the sad and unique thing about the Latin schism - it was gradual, and in a key respect totally unlike previous major schisms. How? Unlike those schisms which involved ambiguities latent in pre-concilliar times regarding choices in terminology, and those who took certain "loose" ways of speaking (found in the Scriptures and the most ancient Fathers) and infused them with novel understandings (materially removed from what right-believing Christians everywhere and always accepted, as given by Christ and the Holy Apostles), this one involved those whose ancestors had agreed to everything in the Seven Ecumenical Councils, but who for various reasons still fell away into private reasonings, which bred private theologies, and a private confession. In other words, this is not about confused or simply stubborn people arguing over how to describe the fundamentals of the Christian revelation, but people who accepted all of that, but later due to isolation and political ills at home, apostacizing. I use that word, because that's what happened - a "falling away."

And like any personal fall, such a large scale "corporate" fall (though not without it's points of Light, and those who held to the narrow path till the end) doesn't typically happen all at once - the seeds are there from early on and changes happen here and there, until you come to a point where you suddenly don't recognize what this person has become. Tell me, just how do you give a specific, over arching anathematization of that? I'll tell you when - when it's all too late.

Such was not the case of the Arians, the Nestorians, the Monophysites, etc. As odd as it will sound (since the Roman Catholic Church nominally accepts all of the Councils which they rejected), the reality is that these heretics actually accepted the same basic assumptions that the Orthodox did, where as self-alienated Latin Christianity came to not do this. This is precisely why, there is at least a prospect for re-union between the Orthodox and the anti-Chalcedonians - where as this is (realistically speaking) unimaginable with the Latin Church. Even in "superficial" matters, identifiable ancient heresies like Arianism or Monophysitism were nearly identical with their Orthodox neighbours - this cannot be said of Latin Christianity at all, now less than ever.